Less than three weeks until election day.  

Pundits like to describe every election as “the most important in our lifetime.”  This one may actually come close to meeting that criterion.  At the very least it is fair to describe it as truly consequential. Sadly, though, for classical liberals who believe as I do, this election is even more disappointing than usual.

As a policy wonk, I dream of elections being decided on issues, but that is rare under the best of circumstances. And these are far from the best of circumstances. Still, Trump and Harris do have very different approaches to the problems facing this country, and it is worth considering them.  

Economic and Domestic Policy: It has been a long time since there has been a true free market candidate for president.  But really, has either of these two ever even talked to an economist?

Harris has been maddeningly vague about her plans as president. Tied to the Biden record, and trying to move to the center without antagonizing her left flank, she tends to speak in platitudes. When she does venture into policy, it is mostly to pander.

Harris is not a communist or even a socialist, but she is a tax and spend Democrat – on steroids. She would mostly continue the policies of the Biden administration. That is not a good thing.  And her refrain that she can pay for all this by “making the rich pay their fair share” is demagogic nonsense.    

But Trump offers little better. His insistence that other countries pay tariffs rather than U.S. consumers may be the single most economically ignorant statement of the campaign – and that’s a high bar.  At the low end of estimates, Trump’s tariffs would cost the average family more than $2600/year.  His immigration policies, even if you ignore their basic inhumanity, would be an economic disaster.  Deporting huge swaths of workers, including large numbers of agricultural and construction workers, will drive prices higher, while the loss of consumers will undercut the economy more broadly.  Estimates suggest that mass deportation would lower GDP growth by more than 7 percent by 2028.

My readers know I’m no fan of taxes and am temperamentally inclined to look on tax cuts favorably. But tax cuts without corresponding reductions in spending are a recipe for disaster. Trump not only has taken most significant spending cuts off the table – he steadfastly refuses to consider reforms to Social Security and Medicare for example—he regularly proposes new subsidies and benefits.. During his first term, Trump added $8 trillion to the national debt, and according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the proposals he has laid out so far would add at least $7.5 trillion and possibly as much as $15 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. Estimates for Harris’ plans are only slightly less bad: an additional $3.5 trillion in debt at the low end and potentially as much as $8.1 trillion. And, given her propensity to solve every problem by spending more, we should expect even higher deficits.  

Harris’s suggestion that inflation is caused by corporate greed and price gouging is deeply unserious, and her proposals to combat it could easily segue into price controls. But it is Trump who has explicitly called for price controls, notably a cap on credit card interest rates. 

Foreign Policy: Trump had some foreign policy successes during his first term, but his coziness with dictators and his willingness to abandon Ukraine is particularly disturbing. Harris’s record on foreign policy is thin, and not without blemish, but she does appear to understand our vital national interests and the importance of alliances and international stability. She can be counted on to stand by Ukraine, the right move both morally and strategically. She also appears to be getting the balance right in support for Israel’s right to self-defense, while also pushing back against its excesses.

Civil Liberties, Freedom, and Constitutional Rights: Neither Trump nor Harris has been a beacon of civil liberties. Harris’s record as a district attorney and as California attorney general was dreadful, frequently running roughshod over the rights of defendants and others. Both her statements and the actions of the Biden administration raise serious concerns about free speech and censorship. She shows an unhealthy attachment to unilateral executive action.

But Trump’s positions run the gamut from simply concerning to truly terrifying. He threatens to use the military against his enemies. He would shut down media outlets that criticize him. He promises to immunize violent and abusive police. He sees virtualy no limits to his powers as president.    

Certainly, Harris is to be preferred on issues of individual autonomy such as abortion, gay and transgender rights. These issues are every bit as important as economic ones.

The Deciding Factor: I could go on, but in the end, this is not just another choice between disappointing candidates with policies I dislike. Donald Trump is not “literally Hitler,” but you can do a lot of damage to the fabric of this country and to democratic norms without being literally Hitler. Trump’s behavior on January 6, his advocacy of violence, and his desire for revenge and retribution are entirely disqualifying. Likewise, his xenophobia, race-baiting, and misogyny. And this time, there will be fewer adults in the administration to set guard rails around his behavior. I know that a lot of my friends simply do not believe that Donald Trump wants to do what he says he wats to do. They chalk it up to hyperbole and showmanship. Maybe.  But can we really take the chance?

I disagree with Kamala Harris on so many issues. And if she is elected, I will undoubtedly spend the next four years criticizing her. But ultimately this is a rare binary choice – if Harris will likely be a bad president, but bad in the usual way. Donald Trump will be an unfit one.  I will be voting for Kamala Harris in November.